Politics

[Tubby’s Canteen]

I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen… if we think US-Canada relations are strained now, things will get much more difficult if Canada provides Ford a voice at the federal level…

Poilievre is someone I think Trump has at least some measure of respect for, and he hasn’t gone out of his way to throw ridiculous rocks like Ford has…

The more of a voice Ford gets the less the US is going to listen…

Well I don’t share the opinion the sentiment seems to be that the U.S. isn’t listening anyway so we may as well have a boorish leader of our own. The latest on the news tonight was a threat from trump of more and larger tariffs if Canada if we collaborate with Europe. Which was received by the Canadian people as him saying we’re not your friends and you can’t have any other friends either.

The only good I’ve seen come of the news in recent days is trump took to what ever social he currently frequents and said he had a good call with carney and they agreed of a great many things. Which could hurt carney in the polls the last thing Canadian voters are looking for is a leader who’s in agreement with trump. We’re in the midst of an election where all other issues have seemingly been swept aside in favour of which leader is most likely to stand against trump and not knuckle under in the face of his economic pressure. There’s a fairly large minority who believe trump actually intends to invade Canada.

 

[steve white]

It doesnt have to be complicated. You have universal taxes on all goods, and targeted taxes on specific goods, or goods from specific places. Simple enough.

A VAT is applied to all products, foreign and domestic, and hence is not a barrier to trade at all. If all goods from all places are more expensive, then no one is losing, except of course the local consumer. Its just simple tax burden. Europe loves that, although I'd agree with you that given the choice of sales tax or income tax, I find sales taxes more equitable and prefer them. Obviously theyre not as good at stimulating the economy though.

A tariff however is different because it is selective. Trump increasing sales tax on all cars doesn't make American cars artificially competitive. A tariff on foreign cars does.

What is the same in both cases is who pays for the reduction in competiton. It's certainly not manufacturers. It's American consumers. Yet he has the cheek to claim to be working to reduce inflation. Gotta laugh.

As for if foreign companies should build US factories? Maybe. Some already do. Theres some advantages in short supply chains, reduced import cost, advertizing advantage. Enough that some consider it advantageous.

But most manufacturers don't because they can make the same product cheaper elsewhere and offer a better value proposition to the consumer as a result. A free market doesn't support it.

You can force them to do so using tariffs, but at an ultimate cost to the consumer of more expensive goods. Maybe the price hike is passing on tariffs. Maybe the price hike is passing on high us wages, high us regulatory burden, and repayment of capital investment. US consumers get screwed either way.

IF (according to Peter Ziehan) globalization will be unraveling, China descending due to aging population, etc. then it makes sense to move manufacturing back onshore in America?

 

[Opposite Pole]

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]" data-quote="Russ[emoji6]" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

And most of the things you have contains at least a few parts or materials from locations other than where they were made. We have to accept the economy isn’t as simple as it was [emoji6][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]] years ago.

Certainly, if’s common sense and common knowledge

 

[Alistair]

IF (according to Peter Ziehan) globalization will be unraveling, China descending due to aging population, etc. then it makes sense to move manufacturing back onshore in America?

Maybe, I'm no expert and I certainly don't claim to have a crystal ball.

To know if the right move right now to respond to a possible (likely?) China decline at some unspecified point in the future is on-shoring, or off-shoring, or a move to production in India, or a move to production in Africa, or a full on East Asian invasion is far, far beyond my knowledge. Probably Zeihan's as well, much as he doesn't want to admit it.

Worldwide trade is very complicated. We're all dealing in incomplete data sets, with limited knowledge, and based on our own biases. In that context, your guess is as good as mine.

What we can be relatively confident of, is that for the next three years it does certainly mean higher prices, weaker US economic performance, and less choice. Plus a loss of US influence.

If that's a prescient move against future disruption, or just self defeating? Time will tell. I sincerely hope that everything will be great and I'll be sat here in 2028 eating a big old helping of humble pie. But I'm a cynic at heart.

I also wonder if it's the start of a longer term trend in that direction, or just a momentary wobble in US policy for 4 years that ultimately just puts the country in a worse position to react to that future paradigm if and when it does actually occur. Doing things 'for the good of the nation' is all well and good, but even if it is ultimately the right call, it requires a whole lot of Americans to put up with a whole lot of short term pain and still vote for the people dumping on 'em in 2026 and in 2028.

Speaking personally, I don't think I have enough faith in the madness of crowds to bank on that either.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Maybe, I'm no expert and I certainly don't claim to have a crystal ball.

To know if the right move right now to respond to a possible (likely?) China decline at some unspecified point in the future is on-shoring, or off-shoring, or a move to production in India, or a move to production in Africa, or a full on East Asian invasion is far, far beyond my knowledge. Probably Zeihan's as well, much as he doesn't want to admit it.

Worldwide trade is very complicated. We're all dealing in incomplete data sets, with limited knowledge, and based on our own biases. In that context, your guess is as good as mine.

What we can be relatively confident of, is that for the next three years it does certainly mean higher prices, weaker US economic performance, and less choice. Plus a loss of US influence.

If that's a prescient move against future disruption, or just self defeating? Time will tell. I sincerely hope that everything will be great and I'll be sat here in 2028 eating a big old helping of humble pie. But I'm a cynic at heart.

I also wonder if it's the start of a longer term trend in that direction, or just a momentary wobble in US policy for 4 years that ultimately just puts the country in a worse position to react to that future paradigm if and when it does actually occur. Doing things 'for the good of the nation' is all well and good, but even if it is ultimately the right call, it requires a whole lot of Americans to put up with a whole lot of short term pain and still vote for the people dumping on 'em in 2026 and in 2028.

Speaking personally, I don't think I have enough faith in the madness of crowds to bank on that either.

I can’t speak for other nations but long term I believe this will be good for Canada, Canadian faith in the U.S. has been irrevocably damaged an in the medium to long term I see a shift away from Canada blindly trading with America without considering other options.

 

[Tanks]

IF (according to Peter Ziehan) globalization will be unraveling, China descending due to aging population, etc. then it makes sense to move manufacturing back onshore in America?

Burger flippers in Seattle WA, CA and quite a number of large cities etc. are making $20-$25/hour. Are you ready to pay 10-20X for those goods that will be made here?

That is assuming one can even find trained personnel. I seem to remember that quite a number of companies would train people in trades for free for them to work in their factories and found no takers.

Edit: Of course, we also do not want any foreigners to come and take those jobs either.

 

[Jeff505]

One more time - VAT is not a barrier to entry, because it is not a tax on imports. It is a sales tax, added to most goods whether made locally or imported. A new car sold in Poland is subject to 23% VAT (fu*kin government) regardless if it’s been manufactured in Poland, USA, Germany, Mexico, Canada or Japan. Vehicle trade is as good example as any.

A VAT (value added tax) increases the price of a commodity. This does not occur in the USA. When building a device each item that goes into the manufacture of that equipment is sales tax deferred. Tax is paid when the finished product is sold. With VAT tax is paid at each step of development, with complex equipment this can often double the price of the finished product. This is a reap for government treasuries paid at the expense of those who purchase the product. This is an incredible tax on the consumer with a very escalated price. The only tax that appears on the receipt is the final sales tax, not all the taxes paid to produce the item. Truly a government scam to those countries that allow this.

 

[Alistair]

A VAT (value added tax) increases the price of a commodity. This does not occur in the USA. When building a device each item that goes into the manufacture of that equipment is sales tax deferred. Tax is paid when the finished product is sold. With VAT tax is paid at each step of development, with complex equipment this can often double the price of the finished product. This is a reap for government treasuries paid at the expense of those who purchase the product. This is an incredible tax on the consumer with a very escalated price. The only tax that appears on the receipt is the final sales tax, not all the taxes paid to produce the item. Truly a government scam to those countries that allow this.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but at least for the EU, if you're an enterprise, you can reclaim VAT on all inputs, including goods or services paid for in the production of your own product.

As a general explanation:
"Here are the different types of VAT businesses must collect, pay, and calculate:

• Output VAT: This is the VAT businesses charge on their sales (outputs). For example, if a business sells a product for £200 with a 20% VAT rate, they charge £240, with £40 as the output VAT.
• Input VAT: This is the VAT businesses pay on their purchases (inputs). For instance, if a business buys raw materials for £100 and the supplier charges 20% VAT, the business pays £120, with £20 as the input VAT.
• Net VAT payable: When businesses file their VAT returns, they calculate the difference between the output VAT and the input VAT. If the output VAT is higher, they pay the difference to HMRC. If the input VAT is higher, they can reclaim the difference."

In the example above, the TOTAL VAT payable to the Government would be 40 OUT - 20 IN = 20 on the GBP200 in sales. The consumer pays the full 40 to the company. The company keeps half to reclaim the 20 they already spent on raw material 'input VAT', the other 20 goes to the government. The total VAT charged to the supply chain for all the intermediary materials at the end of all the accounting drills = 0.

If you're BMW, you buy steel, you pay VAT, you make parts, you pay VAT, and so on and so forth. At the end of all of that, you work out all the VAT you already paid, then subtract that from the VAT you collect from your final goods you sell to a consumer. Effective net VAT in the supply chain = 0. The only time VAT is actually paid is when the consumer buys the car...

The reason that taxes paid to make the item aren't listed on a receipt is because there effectively AREN'T any taxes paid on materials used to make the item. Just the same as the US. The only time VAT is charged and NOT reclaimed is when the end consumer buys the end product. The maximum that the consumer has to pay is always 20% of the final sales price. That's it.

As such, no, VAT is not 'paid at each stage of development', or rather, it is, and then it's reclaimed.

For a good manufactured elsewhere, the same applies. VAT charged during production of the good is obviously 0, it was made elsewhere. The total VAT charged on the imported good is 20% of the final purchase price paid by the end consumer. The difference? All 20% goes straight to the government, as there's no 'pre-paid in-process VAT' that the company can reclaim (because they didn't pay any in the supply chain anyway). No net benefit to the company either way.

Even assuming your statement was true (which again, it isn't), I fail to see how EU governments willfully making their own internal enterprises less efficient would somehow lead to it being a barrier to trade for US companies trying to break into their markets and compete with them on price. If anything, it would rather seem that the opposite would occur...

 

[Alistair]

I'm sure you're aware of this, but at least for the EU, if you're an enterprise, you can reclaim VAT on all inputs, including goods or services paid for in the production of your own product.

As a general explanation:
"Here are the different types of VAT businesses must collect, pay, and calculate:

• Output VAT: This is the VAT businesses charge on their sales (outputs). For example, if a business sells a product for £200 with a 20% VAT rate, they charge £240, with £40 as the output VAT.
• Input VAT: This is the VAT businesses pay on their purchases (inputs). For instance, if a business buys raw materials for £100 and the supplier charges 20% VAT, the business pays £120, with £20 as the input VAT.
• Net VAT payable: When businesses file their VAT returns, they calculate the difference between the output VAT and the input VAT. If the output VAT is higher, they pay the difference to HMRC. If the input VAT is higher, they can reclaim the difference."

In the example above, the TOTAL VAT payable to the Government would be 40 OUT - 20 IN = 20 on the GBP200 in sales. The consumer pays the full 40 to the company. The company keeps half to reclaim the 20 they already spent on raw material 'input VAT', the other 20 goes to the government. The total VAT charged to the supply chain for all the intermediary materials at the end of all the accounting drills = 0.

If you're BMW, you buy steel, you pay VAT, you make parts, you pay VAT, and so on and so forth. At the end of all of that, you work out all the VAT you already paid, then subtract that from the VAT you collect from your final goods you sell to a consumer. Effective net VAT in the supply chain = 0. The only time VAT is actually paid is when the consumer buys the car...

The reason that taxes paid to make the item aren't listed on a receipt is because there effectively AREN'T any taxes paid on materials used to make the item. Just the same as the US. The only time VAT is charged and NOT reclaimed is when the end consumer buys the end product. The maximum that the consumer has to pay is always 20% of the final sales price. That's it.

As such, no, VAT is not 'paid at each stage of development', or rather, it is, and then it's reclaimed.

For a good manufactured elsewhere, the same applies. VAT charged during production of the good is obviously 0, it was made elsewhere. The total VAT charged on the imported good is 20% of the final purchase price paid by the end consumer. The difference? All 20% goes straight to the government, as there's no 'pre-paid in-process VAT' that the company can reclaim (because they didn't pay any in the supply chain anyway). No net benefit to the company either way.

Even assuming your statement was true (which again, it isn't), I fail to see how EU governments willfully making their own internal enterprises less efficient would somehow lead to it being a barrier to trade for US companies trying to break into their markets and compete with them on price. If anything, it would rather seem that the opposite would occur...

Reading back, this post isn't very clear, so here's a simplified example.

At the top, we see the process for making beer in the UK.

Step 1. A seed distributor. They (in this example) are a primary producer. They, as far as the government is concerned, make money out of nothing. None of their inputs have a value, so they are charged no VAT.Their output does have a value - 100. When they sell it to the second producer, the farmer, they charge the farmer 120. 100 for the goods, 20 for the VAT. The 20 goes to the UK gov.

Step 2. The farmer takes seeds and grows barley. The barley is worth 200. He sells it for 240 to the maltings. 200 for the goods, 40 for the VAT. BUT, he only gives the UK gov 20, the other 20 he keeps to recoup the VAT he already paid on the seeds.

Step 3. The malting turns barley into malted barley. The malted barley is worth 400. They sell it for 480 to the brewer. 400 for the goods, 80 for the VAT. BUT, again, the maltings only gives the UK gov 40, the other 40 they keep to recoup VAT already paid on the barley.

Step 4. The brewer takes the malt and makes beer. The beer is worth 800. they sell it to the consumer for 960. 800 for the good, 160 for the VAT. BUT, they only give the UK gov 80, keeping the other 80 to recoup the VAT they already paid on the malt.

This puts total VAT collected by the UK government over the entire process at 160 (20+20+40+80). Exactly what the end customer paid in VAT. The end customer is the only person who actually paid anything to the UK government in taxes. Everything upstream is an accounting drill only.

Compare this to an import beer.

No VAT is paid on any of steps 1-3. They don't occur in country, the UK gov can't claim any VAT.

The end customer pays 160 in VAT, collected by the brewer. The brewer has no input VAT to recoup, so all 160 goes to the UK gov.

Exactly the same. No net change.

 

[Jeff505]

I'm sure you're aware of this, but at least for the EU, if you're an enterprise, you can reclaim VAT on all inputs, including goods or services paid for in the production of your own product.

As a general explanation:
"Here are the different types of VAT businesses must collect, pay, and calculate:

• Output VAT: This is the VAT businesses charge on their sales (outputs). For example, if a business sells a product for £200 with a 20% VAT rate, they charge £240, with £40 as the output VAT.
• Input VAT: This is the VAT businesses pay on their purchases (inputs). For instance, if a business buys raw materials for £100 and the supplier charges 20% VAT, the business pays £120, with £20 as the input VAT.
• Net VAT payable: When businesses file their VAT returns, they calculate the difference between the output VAT and the input VAT. If the output VAT is higher, they pay the difference to HMRC. If the input VAT is higher, they can reclaim the difference."

In the example above, the TOTAL VAT payable to the Government would be 40 OUT - 20 IN = 20 on the GBP200 in sales. The consumer pays the full 40 to the company. The company keeps half to reclaim the 20 they already spent on raw material 'input VAT', the other 20 goes to the government. The total VAT charged to the supply chain for all the intermediary materials at the end of all the accounting drills = 0.

If you're BMW, you buy steel, you pay VAT, you make parts, you pay VAT, and so on and so forth. At the end of all of that, you work out all the VAT you already paid, then subtract that from the VAT you collect from your final goods you sell to a consumer. Effective net VAT in the supply chain = 0. The only time VAT is actually paid is when the consumer buys the car...

The reason that taxes paid to make the item aren't listed on a receipt is because there effectively AREN'T any taxes paid on materials used to make the item. Just the same as the US. The only time VAT is charged and NOT reclaimed is when the end consumer buys the end product. The maximum that the consumer has to pay is always 20% of the final sales price. That's it.

As such, no, VAT is not 'paid at each stage of development', or rather, it is, and then it's reclaimed.

For a good manufactured elsewhere, the same applies. VAT charged during production of the good is obviously 0, it was made elsewhere. The total VAT charged on the imported good is 20% of the final purchase price paid by the end consumer. The difference? All 20% goes straight to the government, as there's no 'pre-paid in-process VAT' that the company can reclaim (because they didn't pay any in the supply chain anyway). No net benefit to the company either way.

Even assuming your statement was true (which again, it isn't), I fail to see how EU governments willfully making their own internal enterprises less efficient would somehow lead to it being a barrier to trade for US companies trying to break into their markets and compete with them on price. If anything, it would rather seem that the opposite would occur...

There are examples of how European countries give exemptions to VATs, my purpose was not to impune the idea but add to what is actually taking place. I personally think the entire premise of government tax on private industry is a step in the wrong direction. If one is to read into the process that occurs in the stated tax and the exemptions that are granted it should be obvious that those who believe in less government would be against such interference in business. If you think this is a positive idea and good for business then by all means support such an idea. Perhaps a naive and simplistic ideology to assume that most would consider less government involvement is a positive thing. I think maybe my respect for individuality is showing.

 

[rigbymauser]

The first persons statement is absolutely incorrect…

This is the pivot of this whole pickle. One of the parties are not telling the truth.

 

[Scott CWO]

It’s refreshing to watch our VP able speak off the cuff for at least :30 straight. Forming cohesive and coherent sentences. IE: With the US Marines and today at the US and NATO Greenland Missile and Space defense base.

The US is no longer asleep at the wheel and is finally sounding the alarm that China and Russia have been building infrastructure at the Panama Canal and the sea lanes near and on Greenland.

We can not allow Greenland to become so entangled and indebted to China that they control that region.

Sleepy Joe was truly asleep at the wheel.

Now if we could just get Trump to stop going off on tangents, it would be great. Or, maybe Vance can take over sometime soon.

 

[KJE81]

Now if we could just get Trump to stop going off on tangents, it would be great. Or, maybe Vance can take over sometime soon.

I dont get the impression that he wants Vance to take on the mantle, judging by how he seems to be as a person I would not be surprised if he would be planning to start a political dynasty by endorsing one of his children instead. Perhaps the Trump name and an endorsement from Trump himself would be enough to win over the MAGA-movement.

Asked whether he sees JD Vance as his successor, Trump hedges

Fox News’ Bret Baier asked the president, “Do you view Vice President JD Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?” Trump didn’t say yes.

www.msnbc.com

 

[rigbymauser]

The first persons statement is absolutely incorrect…

He states there is no military threat… the Russians aren’t a threat, etc..

No one is worried about a Russian armored division scooting across Greenland to get to the US through Canada… that is true..

The issue with Greenland is the artic is the shortest and most efficient route for Russian ICBMs to hit US and Canadian targets.. it’s also a fast and efficient route for Chinas nuclear threat…

It is also positioned along critical North Atlantic shipping lanes that are of strategic importance to both Canada and the US (and Europe if Europe intends on trading with the US and Canada)

The strategic military issue associated with Greenland is nuclear defense and naval defense of shipping lanes… no one is worried about an occupying force having to be thwarted…

Denmark has openly admitted it has failed to adequately adhere to its NATO commitments regarding Greenland and its defense…

Remember Us have had the armybase for many years and now suddenly under Trumps presidency there is a threat.
Denmark has no political military interest in generel with Greenland(only US has). Its kinda funny after all these years the americans have`been sleeping with various presidents and all of a sudden out of a pink cloud comes a convicted New York developer who prior to this might not even could place "russia" on a map finds interest in Greenland. This falls in line with what an economist earlier spoke about the US has a "50 year plan"to secure resources so the US will stay on top. But for the US to keep repeating: "Denmark has failed...Denmark has failed...Denmark has failed" tells me the Trump party is ready to set the world ablaze to hide the lie!!.

 

[Scott CWO]

A danish perspective on the Greenland affair..

What a chit show. I can't believe we are even talking about this. The USA has the ability to expand its military bases on Greenland already. The big play here is missile defense and shipping lane defense but I don't think we have to "own" Greenland to get those systems in place.

As for mining, does anyone really think that Inuit peoples and other Greenlanders will put up with the environmental impact of mining there? People in Greenland are so "green" that they make a lot of US environmentalists look "brown" by comparison.

 

[Opposite Pole]

A VAT (value added tax) increases the price of a commodity. This does not occur in the USA. When building a device each item that goes into the manufacture of that equipment is sales tax deferred. Tax is paid when the finished product is sold. With VAT tax is paid at each step of development, with complex equipment this can often double the price of the finished product. This is a reap for government treasuries paid at the expense of those who purchase the product. This is an incredible tax on the consumer with a very escalated price. The only tax that appears on the receipt is the final sales tax, not all the taxes paid to produce the item. Truly a government scam to those countries that allow this.

This is incorrect. B2B sales by design are VAT free. Without getting too deep into accounting standards - the purchaser offsets the VAT from purchases against his VAT dues or gets a credit or refund if the balance is negative. I known this for a fact - I am a business owner. Presently I run two, one is a manufacturing business. Also I have a postgrad degree with professional accounting major.

Think about it, if 20 something percent was added to a product’s price at each step from raw materials’ acquisition, through transport, manufacturing to distribution the prices would be multiple of what they are. I’m not saying that 23% is a small tax, it is a tremendous rip off, but you seem to completely misunderstand what VAT is. Also, if as you thought VAT was applied to a product at each step of manufacturing in Europe, multiplying it’s price, wouldn’t that be a tremendous advantage for US manufacturing whose products could only be taxed once, at point of sale?

 

[Altitude sickness]

What a chit show. I can't believe we are even talking about this. The USA has the ability to expand its military bases on Greenland already. The big play here is missile defense and shipping lane defense but I don't think we have to "own" Greenland to get those systems in place.

As for mining, does anyone really think that Inuit peoples and other Greenlanders will put up with the environmental impact of mining there? People in Greenland are so "green" that they make a lot of US environmentalists look "brown" by comparison.

Listening to JD Vance I get the impression that Trumps bluster is his typical over the top tactic.

Vance sounds like he wants more of a relationship like the Isle of Man and England. Or Estonia. They are a separate country under the protection of the US. Not Denmark.

Currently, China specifically thinks we are just renting space so they are also allowed to rent space also. Once China loans Greenland enough money. Or builds enough infrastructure for “free” Greenland will be the new de facto landlord.

Sea lane and Missle and space defense for the US and NATO countries.

 

[KJE81]

Listening to JD Vance I get the impression that Trumps bluster is his typical over the top tactic.

Vance sounds like he wants more of a relationship like the Isle of Man and England. Or Estonia. They are a separate country under the protection of the US. Not Denmark.

Currently, China specifically thinks we are just renting space so they are also allowed to rent space also. Once China loans Greenland enough money. Or builds enough infrastructure for “free” Greenland will be the new de facto landlord.

Sea lane and Missle and space defense for the US and NATO countries.

I think that Trumps reason for wanting Greenland/Canada is more in the lines of him wanting to leave a lastning legacy in the form of territorial expansion not so much about geopolitical strategic reason. After all president McKinley seems to be a sort of idol for Trump both with tariffs and probably also for aquiring Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines

If it had only been about geopolitical concerns like how to defend the shipping lanes or the high north from the russians and the chinese why not simply put more military bases on Greenland, both the greenlanders and the danish would most likely agree to that. Canada probably would not mind a military base somewhere in the high north as long as that makes Trump stop talking about Canada becoming a US possession.

 

[TTundra]

Burger flippers in Seattle WA, CA and quite a number of large cities etc. are making $20-$25/hour. Are you ready to pay 10-20X for those goods that will be made here?

That is assuming one can even find trained personnel. I seem to remember that quite a number of companies would train people in trades for free for them to work in their factories and found no takers.

Edit: Of course, we also do not want any foreigners to come and take those jobs either.

This is entirely item and industry dependent.

It is almost a 1-1 cost to inject, blow, or roto mold in the US vs globally. US tooling costs are grossly higher, but amortization over a large run make it negligible. Large cube items once freight is accounted for also then become more desirable in the US. Now add in duties and the decision becomes clear.


We are also seeing a trend in the US and even globally much due to technology (phones, social media, etc) that speed to market is more important than ever. Consumers pay more to get it faster. This aids in near shoring and domestic production. The sheer number of start up 3D print companies is incredible.

Add in production automation where one worker can run multiple machines more easily, and it's a new ball game. I have guys in high school as interns in machine shops running multiple Swiss mills putting out some nice and now more inexpensive product vs 10 years ago.


What I personally would like to see is to revert back to the non disposable way of life. Production costs became so low that everyone purchased in bulk and have closest full of 'stuff'. Value still seems to be placed on the bulk rather than quality for a majority of the US.

 

[rigbymauser]

Once China loans Greenland enough money. Or builds enough infrastructure for “free” Greenland will be the new de facto landlord.

Sea lane and Missle and space defense for the US and NATO countries.

China has been up there some years ago and realized it was too costly to mine minerals.

However under the last days circumstances the Chinese should come around again. Putin(Trumps friend) has declared Greenland has no russian interest. Maybe Vance could deal with the chinese?..